High Court
Delhi court tells WhatsApp Moneycontrol scammers to control themselves
NEW DELHI: If you received a WhatsApp message promising stock market riches from someone claiming to represent Moneycontrol, congratulations—you were being fleeced. The Delhi high court has now pulled the plug on a sprawling scam that hijacked the trusted financial news platform’s name to separate gullible investors from their cash, according a livelaw.in report.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora handed down a permanent injunction on 19 December, ordering that several individuals be restrained from misusing the “Moneycontrol” trademark and that their WhatsApp accounts and mobile numbers stay blocked. The ruling caps a trademark infringement suit filed by Network18 Media & Investments, which runs Moneycontrol—one of India’s most popular sources for financial news, stock data, and investment information.
The con was straightforward in its audacity. Unknown individuals sent WhatsApp messages inviting recipients to join investment groups with names like “CINV The Premier Strategy Group,” promising insider stock tips and eye-watering returns. The groups had zero connection to Moneycontrol but traded shamelessly on its reputation. Unsuspecting punters, believing they were getting advice from a legitimate source, handed over substantial sums of money. They got fleeced instead.
Network18 started receiving complaints in March 2024 from confused members of the public who had been targeted by these fraudulent groups. The pattern was familiar to anyone who has spent five minutes on WhatsApp: join this exclusive group, get rich quick, send money now. The only thing exclusive about it was how thoroughly the scammers exploited Moneycontrol’s credibility.
The court was unimpressed by the defendants’ behaviour—or rather, their complete lack of it. Despite being served notice, none of the 21 individuals involved bothered to show up in court or contest the proceedings. That sort of no-show suggests either supreme confidence or the realisation that the game was up. The court went ahead anyway.
“The activities of the defendants establish a clear intention of showing a direct nexus or affiliation with the plaintiff and making a misrepresentation that its services have been licensed or approved or endorsed by the plaintiff,” Justice Arora observed. Legal-speak for: these people were pretending to be Moneycontrol, and they knew exactly what they were doing.
The court had earlier granted an interim injunction blocking the WhatsApp accounts and mobile numbers tied to the scam. Now it has made that ban permanent, with a one-year extension on the blocked numbers and a directive that they must not be reissued to the same individuals. One of the fraudulent WhatsApp groups has been permanently shut down as well.
The ruling underscores a persistent problem in India’s digital ecosystem: scammers brazenly impersonating legitimate brands on messaging platforms, counting on the fact that enforcement is patchy and victims are often too embarrassed to complain. Moneycontrol’s case is unusual only in that it reached court and resulted in a clear victory.
For Network18, the injunction is both vindication and a warning shot. Protecting a brand’s reputation in the age of WhatsApp fraud requires constant vigilance and legal firepower. For the scammers—or at least the ones daft enough to use traceable phone numbers—the message is clear: the court can and will shut you down.
As for the investors who lost money? The court order does not bring their cash back. It merely ensures that these particular fraudsters cannot keep using Moneycontrol’s name to find fresh victims. In the ruthless world of financial scams, that counts as a small mercy. Caveat emptor, as always—especially on WhatsApp.
High Court
Bombay High Court questions AI celebrity deepfakes in Shilpa Shetty case
Justice questions legality of unconsented AI personas, platforms directed to respond.
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court just put AI on the witness stand because when a chatbot starts chatting as Shilpa Shetty without asking, even the bench wants to know who gave permission. The Bombay High Court on Wednesday expressed serious concerns over the legality of artificial intelligence tools that simulate celebrity personalities without consent, during a personality rights suit filed by actor Shilpa Shetty.
Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, hearing the matter, questioned platforms that allow users to interact with AI-generated versions of actors without authorisation. The court noted that one accused AI chatbot website continued using Shetty’s personality without permission, prompting the judge to ask about the legal basis for such operations.
When the lawyer for the AI company argued that the system relied on algorithms and did not require celebrity consent, Justice Deshmukh challenged the platform’s right to recreate and make public a person’s identity in this manner. She observed that while users uploading photographs raised one set of issues, AI systems generating content based on recognised personalities posed distinct legal and ethical questions especially when the platform itself acknowledged the content was not real.
The court directed the platform to file a detailed response explaining its position.
The case involves Shetty seeking restrictions on more than 30 platforms including e-commerce websites and AI services accused of hosting or enabling misuse of her image and circulation of deepfake content.
The Bench also raised concerns about Youtube commentary videos discussing the ongoing proceedings involving Shetty and her husband, questioning whether unverified discussions could malign parties without journalistic checks.
Counsel for Google, Tenor and the AI entity informed the court that flagged infringing URLs had been removed. Shetty’s team disputed this, leading the court to allow her to file an application alleging non-compliance if links remained active.
Tenor objected to the broad injunction sought, arguing it functions as an intermediary GIF platform without capacity for proactive monitoring. The court directed Tenor to file an affidavit opposing the order.
E-commerce platforms including Amazon stated they had removed unauthorised listings using Shetty’s name and image, and would continue to act on specific notifications.
The court reiterated that directions for intermediaries would operate on a “take-down on notice” basis, requiring removal of infringing content once flagged.
As deepfakes blur the line between real and rendered, the Bombay High Court isn’t just hearing a case, it’s asking the bigger question: in the age of AI avatars, who really owns your face?
